scout_doctor

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that probing is optional and "live," implying a real network check versus a cheap cached report. However it says nothing about side effects, auth requirements, latency, or failure behavior, which for a diagnostic tool is only partially sufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, with the optional parameter noted last. It is efficient, though the heavy acronym load makes it terse to the point of near-opacity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and no parameters are required. Still, the description never clarifies what a "persona" check or ENScan_GO/Handaas availability actually means in practice, leaving the agent without enough context to interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single boolean, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by framing probe_sidecars as a "live" probe (i.e. default false = passive report, true = active contact), which is real value beyond the bare boolean type and default.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Report availability of ..." names a specific verb and resource, so the diagnostic intent is legible. But the resources (ENScan_GO, Handaas, personas) are opaque internal names, and the sibling scout_sidecars is not differentiated or referenced, so an agent cannot confidently route between them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase "optional live sidecar probe" hints that probe_sidecars toggles a heavier mode, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no statement of when to prefer this over scout_sidecars or scout_sessions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.